Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440.

99 citing documents.

Whittaker v. State 753 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 2008
Whittaker v. State 753 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 2008
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
State v. Ramey 721 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2006
Some examples are: eliciting inadmissible evidence, -54 (Minn.1994); alluding in argument to the defendant’s exercise of the right not to testify, -51 (Minn.1997), or to the defendant’s failure to call witnesses, misstating the presumption of innocence, Salitros, d at 818 , or the burden of proof, interjecting the prosecutor’s personal opinion about
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of D.D.R. 713 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
(holding that due process claim based on grand jurors’ acquaintance with the murder victim and/or a grand jury witness was improperly and untimely raised on direct appeal) (citing Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
State v. DeRosier 695 N.W.2d 97 Minn. 2005
United States v. Triplett, 195 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir.1999); (citing Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Tate 682 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
A prosecutor “shall not allude to the defendant’s failure to testify.”
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
Minn. Sentencing Guidelines II.F.2 (providing that “[m]ulti-ple current felony convictions for crimes against persons may be sentenced consecutively to each other”); (“In appropriate cases, [consecutive] sentences serve the valid legislative purpose of protecting the public.”); see, (affirming multiple consecutive sentences in a ease involving multiple vic tims; life sentence for first-degree murder, a consecutive 180-month term for first-degree attempted murder, six 36-month terms consecutive t
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McNeil 658 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
State v. Darris 648 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
State v. Pippitt 645 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 2002
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
McCollum v. State 640 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 2002
1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965)
State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. James 638 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
But regardless of a defendant’s failure to object, this court may reverse a conviction if the comments were “unduly prejudicial.”
State v. King 622 N.W.2d 800 Minn. 2001
State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Bashire 606 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
State v. Robinson 604 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2000
State v. Sewell 595 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Sewell 595 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
State v. Williams 593 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1999
Johnson, d at 433 ; accord Minn. R. Evid.
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Profit 591 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
While the modus operandi of the “other” crimes and charged crimes need not be identical, “[t]his court will readily uphold the admission of so-called ‘signature crimes’ to prove the identity of the perpetrator.”
State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(a defendant who fails to object or seek curative instructions to a prosecutor's comment on closing argument is deemed to have waived the right to appeal; although a court may reverse despite this failure if the comments were unduly prejudicial, the failure to object implies that the comments were not
State v. Ascheman 589 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Ascheman 589 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(holding defendant’s failure to object to prosecutor’s statements generally waives right to raise issue on appeal).